Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

Inhaled Corticosteroid-Containing Treatment Escalation and Outcomes for Patients with Asthma in a U.S. Health Care Organization.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common disorder that affects approximately 8% of the U.S. POPULATION: Treatment guidelines indicate inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the mainstay treatment, yet poor asthma control is common among ICS-treated patients. Treatment escalation (ICS dose increase and other controller therapy add-ons) is used to manage symptoms. Real-world studies of postescalation outcomes may inform treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe characteristics and treatment patterns among asthma patients who escalated treatment and (b) assess outcomes (exacerbations, uncontrolled asthma, and health care resource utilization [HCRU]) after escalation. METHODS: The study cohort was identified from a large U.S. administrative claims database via ICD-9-CM codes for asthma (493.xx on ≥ 2 dates) and initiation (defining index date) of long-term (> 1 fill) ICS-containing treatment between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2014. One year of continuous enrollment was required before and after the index date. Escalation was defined as ≥ 1 of the following: ICS dose increase; a switch between ICS, long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA), or leukotriene modifiers (LTRM) to a different ICS, LABA, or LTRM; or add-on of controller medications (e.g., antibody biologic). Escalation patterns were examined. Rates of exacerbation (defined by inpatient admission, emergency department [ED] visit, or office visit with a pharmacy claim for an oral corticosteroid [OCS] within 7 days) and occurrence of uncontrolled asthma (defined by > 4 fills for a short-acting beta agonist [SABA] in a 1-year period, ≥ 1 OCS fill, or ≥ 1 asthma-related ED visit or inpatient admission) were calculated. Per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HCRU was estimated. RESULTS: Among 35,126 patients (mean [SD] age 38 [16] years) who initiated long-term ICS-containing treatment, 5,044 (14%) patients escalated their index regimens at 136 (105) days post-index (i.e., pre-escalation period). The most frequent changes, alone or in combination, included ICS dose increase (68%) or LABA (27%) or LTRM (25%) add-ons. Before escalation, the exacerbation rate was 1.60 (5.10) PPPY, and 1,108 (22%) patients experienced exacerbation. During the postescalation period of 251.6 (138.9) days, the exacerbation rate was 0.75 (2.9) PPPY, and 1,038 (21%) patients experienced exacerbation. A majority (> 85%) of exacerbations in the periods before and after escalation were associated with an office visit plus an OCS pharmacy claim within 7 days. Uncontrolled asthma was experienced by 41.5% and 41.0% of patients before and after escalation, respectively. Ambulatory care visits were common before (mean [SD] 24.0 [26.7] all-cause and 8.5 [13.4] asthma-related PPPY) and after escalation (19.3 [21.3] all-cause and 4.6 [8.1] asthma-related PPPY). CONCLUSIONS: Among asthma patients who initiated a long-term ICS-containing regimen, approximately 14% escalated therapy within a year of initiation. Yet, 21% of those patients had ≥ 1 exacerbation, and 41% of patients had uncontrolled asthma within 1 year after treatment escalation. The results demonstrate an unmet need among asthma patients who escalated their ICS-containing treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored and funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim, which contracted with Optum to conduct the research. The sponsor collaborated with Optum on the preparation, writing, revision, and approval of the manuscript. Bengston, Cao, Hulbert, Wolbeck, Elliott, and Buikema are employees of Optum. Yu and Wang are employed by Boehringer-Ingelheim. Study concept and design were contributed by Bengston, Yu, and Wang. Cao, Hulbert, and Wolbeck collected the data, and data analysis was performed by Bengston, Yu, and Wang. The manuscript was written by Bengston, along with Yu and Wang, and revised by Bengston, Yu, and Wang, along with the other authors.